But we're not a real city. Certainly not the way Chicago or Atlanta
or Houston or New York or Fillintheblank are. By several counts, the
entire Bay Area is considered a single metropolitan area ... centered
on what, San Francisco? Maybe symbolically. But the speed of growth
and other factors will leave SF in the dust, at some point.
Symbolism is a lot, though. I wonder how much regional cheerleading
SF can do, getting transportation systems connected better, getting
funding lined up for all counties.
>If we insist on being [a hyperthyroid Pleasanton], downtown will slowly
>leave and, ultimately,
>so will MUNI, et al, and we will eventually join Detroit and Cleaveland,
>once great cities that now barely survive. We can't have it both ways.
I was offering an interpretation of two visions, and you changed it
to a rather drastic black and white choice. SF's big business
connections will subside as other areas grow into prominence. How
will we respond? What will happen to systems like MUNI, will they
vanish, or will ghostly buses run empty through the foggy night...
Reality, through my eyes, is that big money holds all the cards,
everywhere. We all have to choose how closely we want to ally
ourselves with that money. But the trials and tribulations of
international capital are not something on which you can base local
social policy. Even if you're New York City.
This is an era where companies support education in order to
advertise to kids more frequently. Capital is off on its own little
trip. Following it there is very dangerous for the rest of us. We,
who are not part of it, are philosophically responsible for bringing
it back to earth, showing the abstract the merits of being concrete.
I think maybe this can't be done city by city. This is going to have
to be done as a region.
=dtp=
........................................
..
.. David Powers : chromozone
.. San Francisco CA USA
.. fax 415 436.9141
.. mailto:chromo@sirius.com
..